Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram Sharma on 1 March, 2024
1 of 16 IN THE COURT OF MAYANK MITTAL ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts) CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI STATE VS. VIKRAM & ORS.
FIR No. : 91/2010 (PS: I.P. Estate)
CNR No. : DLCT02-000363-2010
Date of Institution : 08.09.2015
Name of the complainant : Shiv Naresh Chauhan
S/o Sh. Hakim Singh
R/o B-234, Gali No.2 Sonia
Vihar, Pehla Pusta, Delhi-94.
Name of accused : (1) Vikram Sharma
his parentage and address etc. S/o Sh. Satyapal Sharma
R/o B-636, Gali No.8, 1st Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(Proclaimed Person)
(2) Kailash, S/o Sh. Jai Kishan
R/o B-60, Pratap Nagar, Saboli,
Delhi-110093
(3) Saurabh Sharma,
S/o Sh. Hari Om Sharma
R/o H-74, Gali No.4, West
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
(4) Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari @
Sanjay S/o Sh. Jagat Narain,
R/o H. No. A-108, Gali No.4,
Village Barola, NOIDA,
Sector-49, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Offence complained of : U/s. 325/34 IPC
Date of Judgment : 01.03.2024
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : Conviction
FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
2 of 16
Brief facts and reasons for decision of the case:-
1 The accused persons are facing trial for offence u/s 325/34 IPC.
The genesis of prosecution story is that on 17.06.2010 at about 10:10 PM outside Express Building, Press Area, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS I P Estate, accused persons voluntarily caused grievous injuries on the person of complainant Shiv Naresh Chauhan with a piece of brick / stone. Pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant, the criminal law was set into motion vide registration of the case FIR against accused persons and the investigation of the case began. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet for offence u/s 325/34 IPC was submitted for trial of the accused persons. The provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after supplying the copy of chargesheet and documents to accused persons. Thereafter, on finding a prima facie case against accused, the charge for offences u/s 325/34 IPC were framed on 17.12.2015 and trial of the case began.
2 In order to establish guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined six witnesses in all. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to them. The accused persons opted not to lead the evidence in their statements u/s 313 Cr. PC read with section 281 Cr.P.C and the matter was put up for final arguments. 3 I have heard the arguments perused the record. 3.1 Learned APP has vehemently submitted that during the trial the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
3 of 16 the ingredients of offence under Section 325/34 IPC committed by the accused Kailash, Saurabh Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari. It is submitted that complainant PW-1 Shiv Naresh Chauhan has been consistence in his testimony and has identified the accused persons present in court during his evidence. It is submitted that defence has not brought any evidence to create any doubt in the story of prosecution. It is submitted that all accused are liable to be convicted under Section 325/34 IPC.
3.2 The learned counsel for accused has vehemently submitted that all accused are required to be acquitted on the following grounds: Firstly, as per testimony of PW-1 Shiv Naresh Chauhan, he had become unconscious as a result of assault and accordingly, he can not testify as to who had assaulted him. Secondly, one eye witness Mukesh i.e. PW-3 has not deposed that he had seen the accused assaulting the complainant. Even his cross examination by learned APP did not bring any result favourable to the prosecution. Thirdly, the alleged broken tooth of the complainant has not been produced in the court. Fourthly, no public witness was examined on behalf of prosecution.
4 I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and also by Ld. Defence counsel. Prior to delving into the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses in brief.
4.1 PW-1:- Sh. Shiv Naresh Chauhan deposed that he was running tour and travel agency in the name and style of Arun FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
4 of 16 four & Travels at ITO. His Indica cars were used in the offices of Indian Express and Anand Bazar Patrika. He used to go in the press area of the Indian Express Building with regard to his work. On 17.06.2010, in the evening when he was at Indian Express Building ITO, at around 10:00 pm, he received a call on my mobile No. 9811565651 from Sanjay. Sanjay was working as driver in his Tour and Travel Agency earlier. Sanjay asked him to meet and come out of the building. At around 10:10 pm, he came out of the building and found Sanjay and Kailash were standing there. Sanjay and Kailash were in the drunken condition. Both of them caught hold of him. He told them that he does not want to talk with them. Meanwhile, one person Vikram also came there. He know Vikram earlier also. Vikram hit him with a stone on his face without any reason, one person namely Saurav was also standing there and abusing him and saying that today they will teach a lesson to him. After hit by the stone, Vikram, Sanjay and Kailash ran from the spot. The manager of complainant namely Surender Sharma who was already at the Indian Express Building came at the spot and took him to the hospital for his treatment. Since due to injuries complainant was not able to give his statement to the 1O, so he told him to give his statement after some time. Thereafter on 25.06.2010, complainant had given his statement in the police station. Sanjay, Kailash, Saurabh and Vikram had assaulted the complainant with common intention and without any reason. He sustained injuries due to the act of all the accused persons. Sanjay, Kailash and Saurabh all present in the court FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
5 of 16 and correctly identifies by the witness. Complainant had sustained injuries below his left eye and one of his tooth got extracted as an impact of hitting of stone by the accused persons and had made a detailed complaint mentioning all the facts stated by him to the police. The said complaint Is EX. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A. After filing of the complaint, police also arrived and made investigation and in that course he was also taken to the spot where the site plan was prepared at his instance.
4.1.1 In his cross examination witness stated that he is running the travel agency since 2002. He has the document which reflected that he runs a travel agency which provided services to Indian Express and Anand Bazar Patrika. The accused persons used to be on duty from 9.00 am to 10.00 pm while working with him. He does not recollect the phone number from which he received a call. Accused Sanjay and Kailash worked with him from 2006 to 2009. Accused Sanjay and Kailash were not known to him before 2006. It is correct that accused persons left the job about 5-6 months prior to the incident. He had cleared their dues when they left the job. His office is in the building of Indian Express. His manager Surender Sharma attended him after the incident. He had not consulted any advocate before giving his complaint. He was taken to hospital by his manager only by car. He does not recollect the number of said car. No attendance register was maintained in the office and did not know whether any CCTV camera was installed in the Indian Express FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
6 of 16 building. There were no shops on the main road of Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. Public persons gathered after accused persons ran away. However, he could not tell the names of any of such public person who came to the spot. Accused persons were given Rs.7000/- per month as salary. Accused persons after hitting him with the stone and ran away. Accused persons were not carrying any lathi. He gained complete consciousness after 2-3 hours of the incident and did not know who had made a call at 100 number. He remained in hospital for around 4 days. Police officials came in the hospital and enquired him about the incident. Doctor advised him rest. He had visited Indian Express building at that time for his work alongwith his Manager. He had reached Indian Express building at about 7.00 pm on that day. He usually takes his dinner after 11.00 pm. His house is at distance of about 15 km from Indian Express Building and he usually leaves office between 10.00 to 11.00 pm. He had not handed over any duty chart to the I.O. He has denied the suggestions that he did not give the dues of accused persons and therefore, they were angry with him. At that time he had around 15 drivers including accused persons. That day around 10 drivers were assigned the duties. He has denied the suggestion that no such attack took place and that he suffered injuries as was under the influence of liquor and fell down on his own . That accused Saurabh Sharma worked as driver with him and he did not know that accused Saurabh Sharma was running travel agency since FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
7 of 16 2008 and that accused Vikram Sharma has started driving for accused Saurabh Sharma. He has denied the suggestion that accused Saurabh Sharma was not in Delhi on the date of incident.
4.2 PW-3 Sh. Mukesh stated that on 17.06.2010 at about 10 pm he was present out side Indian Express Biliding and try, car was parked in the building. At about 10:15 pm he saw scuffle between Shiv Naresh Chauhan and Kailash, Saurabh Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari. The accused persons were abusing the complainant. They were fighting as there was some money dispute between complainant and accused persons. In the mean time he left the spot as there was a drop for him. However, PW-3 failed to recall true facts of the case.
4.2.1.1 PW-3 in his cross examination denied all the suggestions given by learned defence counsel. 4.3 PW-4 SI Khemraj, stated that on receiving DD No. 27 A, he alongwith IO SI Anuj Aggarwal went to Sanjeevan Hospital, Darya Gani, where MIC of injured Shiv Naresh Chaudhan were received and on which doctors mentioned 'not fit for statement and on that date, no eye witness was found in the hospital. Doctor produced the broken tooth of Shiv Naresh Chauhan to IO in sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SMRC Pvt. Ltd. Lew Delhi. IO seized the same. 4.3.1 PW-4 in his cross examination denied all the suggestions given by learned defence counsel. 4.4 PW-7 ASI Krishan Pal stated that on the day of incident he was posted at PS as Duty Officer and upon furnishing rukka FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
8 of 16 by SI Anuj Aggarwal he registered the present FIR and also made an endorsement on the rukka.
4.5 PW-8 Inspector Anuj Agarwal submitted that on 17.06.2010 he on receiving DD No.27A along with Ct. Kehm Raj went the Sanjeevan Hospital, Daryaganj, where the MLC of injured Shiv Naresh Chauhan was received and the injured was unfit for statement at that time. Therefore DD No.27A kept pending. When the result of MLC was received, it was declared as 'grievous'. That on 25.06.2010 injured Shiv Naresh Chauhan came to statement and gave his statement, upon which he prepared one tehrir and got the present FIR registered. He prepared the site plan. On 17.06.2010, the Doctor of Sanjeevan Hospital gave broken teeth of the injured, which were seized by him. On 26.06.2010, PW-8 arrested accused Vikram Sharma, Kailash, Saurabh Sharma. On 07.07.2010 accused Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari was arrested. He recored the statement of witnesses after completion of investigation and prepared the challan and filed the same before the court.
4.5.1 During cross examination PW-8 stated that on the day of incident, he was on emergency duty at PS I.P. Estate. He did not visit the spot of incident on the day of incident as injured was not fit for statement and therefore they were unaware about the spot. He visited the spot after registration of FIR. During investigation one eye witness namely Surender was examined. Doctor handed over him sealed pullanda containing broken teeth/pieces of injured but the number of broken teeth were not mentioned in the FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
9 of 16 said pullanda. Accused person were arrested from Press Area, BSZ Marg at the instance of secret informer. He did not remember whether public persons were present at the time of arrest of accused persons and also denied that accused persons worked as driver at his travel agency or that any evidences for this fact were provided by complainant. He did not know the type of vehicle accused persons were driving and even forgot the place where statement of eye witness Surender Sharma was recorded and did not find any camera at the spot. PW-8 admitted that spot of incident is a public area and public persons pass through it and he did not find any stone at the spot which were used by accused persons to beat complainant. He did not know whether accused persons were working under complainant or not.
4.6 PW-9 Ct. Rahul had brought the Register No.19 for the year 2010 where at serial No.1925 DD No.27A, in which it has been mentioned that the seizure memo of sealed pullanda of pieces of tooth were deposited in Malkhana. It was sealed with the seal of SMRC Pvt. Ltd. M. Delhi. The said pullanda was deposited by SI Anuj Kumar on 17.06.2010 and as per the memo it was containing the broken pieces of tooth of S N Chauhan and also brought the Register No.21 where vide District Nazir No.95/21 dated 26.08.2021 the case property of DD No.27A was destroyed vide MUD No.1063/15 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and it is mentioned at S. No. 59.
FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
10 of 16
No witnesses as PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 were examined in the prosecution evidence inadvertently. This is the entire prosecution evidence on record. PE stands closed on 21.10.2023. 5 Vide joint statement made by accused persons, DE was closed vide order dated 25.11.2023.
6 Before proceedings ahead, it is important to refer to the provision of law under which the accused has been charged. Section 320, 325 and 34 of IPC:-
"320. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous".-
First.- Emasculation.
Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of
any member or joint.
Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
" 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
7 As in the case at hand, the accused are charged with offence under Section 325/34 IPC as prosecution has alleged that during the incident, one tooth of the complainant was broken. Whether Section 325 IPC is attracted or not depends upon the finding of fact whether the tooth of the accused was actually borken or not. Before analyzing the facts and evidence, it is again important to FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
11 of 16 refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court guiding this court about the principles of common intention enshrined under Section 34 IPC.
(i) In Balu @ Bal Subramaniam & Anr vs State (U.T. Of Pondicherry) 2016 (15) SCC 471, hon'ble Apex Court has observed:-
10. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result.
Minds regarding the sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overt act is established qua each of the accused. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Common intention is an intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if he has participated in that common intention.
14. Under Section 34 IPC, a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proving facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted.
(ii) In Suresh And Anr vs State Of U.P 2001 SCC (CRI) 601, hon'ble Apex Court has observed:-
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recognises the principle of vicarious liability in the criminal jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. It is a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The section gives statutory recognition to the commonsense principle that if more than two persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. There is no gainsaying that a common intention pre-supposes prior concert, which requires a pre- arranged plan of the accused participating in an offence. Such a pre- concert or pre-planning may develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
12 of 16 crucial test is that such plan must precede the act constituting an offence. Common intention can be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on a spur of moment. The existence of a common intention is a question of fact in each case to be proved mainly as a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case.
Dominant feature for attracting Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is the element of participation in absence resulting in the ultimate "criminal act". The "act" referred to in latter part of Section 34 means the ultimate criminal act with which the accused is charged of sharing the common intention. The accused is, therefore, made responsible for the ultimate criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. The section does not envisage the separate act by all the accused persons for becoming responsible for the ultimate criminal act. If such an interpretation is accepted, the purpose of Section 34 shall be rendered infructuous. Participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention cannot conceive of some independent criminal act by all accused persons, besides the ultimate criminal act because for that individual act law takes care of making such accused responsible under the other provisions of the Code. The word "act" used in Section 34 denotes a series of acts as a single act. What is required under law is that the accused persons sharing the common intention must be physically present at the scene of occurrence and be shown to not have dissauded themselves from the intended criminal act for which they shared the common intention. Culpability under Section 34 cannot be excluded by mere distance from the scene of occurrence. The presumption of constructive intention, however, has to be arrived at only when the court can, with judicial servitude, hold that the accused must have pre- conceived result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Shatrughan Patar & Ors. v. Emperor [AIR 1919 Patna 111] held that it is only when a court with some certainty hold that a particular accused must have pre-conceived or pre-meditated the result which ensued or acted in concert with others in order to bring about that result, that Section 34 may be applied.
(iii) In Virendra Singh vs State Of M.P (2010) 8 SCC 407, hon'ble Apex Court has observed:-
18. The words "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It must be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.
Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point of time, which need not be a long gap. Under this section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. Though common intention may develop on the spot, FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
13 of 16 it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime showing a pre- arranged plan and prior concert. The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference. This has been clearly laid down by this Court in the case of Amrik Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 1972 CrLJ 465 (SC).
19. The essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
20. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to prove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. Therefore, in order to find whether a person is guilty of common intention, it is absolutely necessary to carefully and critically examine the entire evidence on record. The common intention can be spelt out only from the evidence on record.
21. Section 34 is not a substantive offence. It is imperative that before a man can be held liable for acts done by another, under the provisions of this section, it must be established that there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two and the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. Unless common intention and participation are both present, this section cannot apply.
8 In the case at hand the prosecution has alleged the assault by the accused persons on the complainant as there was earlier employee employer relation between them and the accused persons were unhappy / dissatisfied with the employment as a result of which they had left the employment. To prove its case the prosecution has examined complainant who has been consistent and coherent during its evidence and has identified the accused Sanjay, Kailash and Saurabh in court and had also specified their specific act during the incident. Though an argument has been advanced on behalf of accused persons that the complainant / PW-1 became unconscious during the incident and as a result of which he is not a appropriate witness to depose against the accused with regard to incident, however, this court does not find any merit in the submission as PW-1 has stated to FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
14 of 16 have become unconscious after he was hit by a stone by accused Vikram (Proclaimed Person) and there is no averrment or allegation about the complainant / PW-1 was not in his senses before he was hit by stone by accused Vikram. PW-1 has been consistent and coherent in specifying the acts / roles of accused persons during the incident. The role played by accused persons as testified by PW-1 in its evidence clearly brings them within the category of accused having shared the common intention as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, some of which have been discussed above.
9 As far as the testimony of PW-3 is concerned, he had deposed about the incident, however, he had stated that he had not seen the accused persons hitting the complainant as he left the spot as there was a drop for him. The testimony of PW-3 Mukesh is not creating any doubt in the case of prosecution. In fact the testimony of PW-3 Mukesh rules out the possibilities that injuries were received by complainant / PW-1 when he fell down under the influence of liquor, as suggested on behalf of accused No.2 and 4 during the cross examination of PW-1. 10 Further on the face of it the contention advanced on behalf of accused persons that as prosecution has not brought the broken tooth of the complainant in court and as a result of which, the same could not be proved, the accused persons are required to be acquitted, appeared plausable. However, the consideration of complete record and testimonies makes it clear that PW-9 Ct. Rahul has brought and proved the register No.19 for the year 2010 and proved DD No.27A at S. No.1925 Ex. PW 9/A where it was mentioned that seizure memo of sealed pullanda of pieces of FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
15 of 16 tooth were deposited in malakhana (sealed with the seal of SMRC. PW-9 has also brought and proved register No.21 as Ex. PW 9/B where vide District Nazir No.95/21 dated 26.08.2021 the case property DD No.27 A was destroyed vide MUD No.1063/15 at S.No.59. This witness PW-9 was not cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons. Further the fact that complainant Shiv Naresh Chauhan PW-1 was produced in the emergency with broken tooth is clearly mentioned in the MLC of PW-1 Sh. Shiv Narash Chauhan Ex. X1. The said MLC Ex. X1 has been admitted by the accused persons during the trial. As the accused persons have admitted the contents of MLC Ex. X1, the accused have also admitted as truethe fact mentioned therein that Shiv Naresh Chauhan PW-1 was produced in emergency with broken tooth.
11 The story of prosecution has also been challenged on the ground that no independent eye witness had corroborated the testimony of complainant during trial. This court does not find any merit in the said contention advanced on behalf of accused as complainant PW-1 had been consistent during his testimonies and there is no doubt to disbelief the testimony of PW-1 Shiv Naresh Chauhan. In this regard,court is guided by the observation of hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:-
(i) In State of UP vs. Naresh (2011) 4SCC 324 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence can not be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.
16 of 16 merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
(ii) In Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that:-
"26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."
12 From the above said discussion the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons in furtherance of their common intention has hit the complainant Shiv Naresh Chauhan by a stone which has been resulted in breaking of his tooth. Accused Kailash, Saurabh and Sanjeev Kumar are held guilt for offence committed under Section 325/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Kailash, Saurabh and Sanjeev Kumar are convicted for offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on this 1st March, 2024 MAYANK MITTAL ACMM (Spl. Acts), CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI This judgment consists of 16 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
FIR No.91/2010 State Vs. Vikram & Ors.